"We leave
NOBODY behind ... whenever an AMERICAN is in NEED, all of us stand
together to make SURE that we're providing the HELP that's necessary."
President Obama, October 30, 2013.

As in some sense implied in the words just cited, an American
president's paramount duty, his inescapable obligation, both
constitutional and moral, is to
defend our republic, with its officials and its citizens, against
attack by enemies, whether domestic or foreign. Which being so,
an urgent question cannot in good conscience be brushed aside: namely,
what on earth was our president thinking of when, during the seven to
eight hours of the terrorist attack on our consulate and its annex in
Benghazi, he did not give his full attention to the effective dispatch
of ALL available aid to those
under attack? Worse yet, how is it that forces standing ready to rush
to the help of the besieged WERE TOLD
TO STAND DOWN, WERE FORBIDDEN TO RESPOND TO THE PLEAS FOR HELP
issued by our chief of mission? To probe still more deeply, why is it
that all of those requests issued repeatedly by our ambassador for
amplified security at Tripoli and Benghazi during the weeks BEFORE the attack were not simply
turned down: to the astonishment and anger of those on the scene the OFFICIAL RESPONSE TO THOSE PERSISTENT
REQUESTS WAS FURTHER REDUCTION IN THE SECURITY FORCES ALREADY DEPLOYED
IN DEFENSE OF THOSE OUTPOSTS, this despite the fact that without
those reinforcements the Benghazi consulate was patently a death trap,
an islet, if you will, ripe for the taking in a seething sea of
Islamist fury.

At the end of the day what all
of this comes down to is one question: Why were an American ambassador
-and three other brave Americans abandoned by our government and left
to die?

Disgraceful as is so flagrant a betrayal of the bedrock principle of
the military code: viz. "we
don't leave our people behind," even
more disturbing (because more comprehensive in scope) is the policy that has prevailed over the
past few years calling for a massive, unrelenting deconstruction of
America's military might, the might on which depends the security of
our republic, not to mention the defense of our allies. This
deliberate, systematic downgrading of our military power has reached
all the way to our nuclear arsenal, the arsenal that, an explicit
presidential pledge to the contrary notwithstanding, is being neither
properly maintained nor properly upgraded, even as drastic cuts in
spending are crippling the other "wing" that sustains us in the age of
ballistic missiles tipped with multiple warheads, namely the design and
deployment of an effective system of ANTI-MISSLE DEFENSE. All
this at the very moment when CHINA
AND RUSSIA are building up, at close to warp speed, a whole new
generation of more accurate systems of delivery and more sophisticated
nuclear bombs. Further, we shrug off to our peril -- as in fact we are
so doing while showing at present no inclination to change course --
the threat from IRAN, advancing closer and closer, day by day, to a
breakthrough to the status of a nuclear power. Once Iran has
"The Bomb", its mullahs' fanatical zeal to prepare the way for the "Second Coming" of the
Twelfth Imam -- which Second Coming, so Shite Muslims believe,
will be preceded by a conflagration of global proportions, followed by
the global triumph of Islam -- will present us with a much greater
danger of nuclear war, all the more so if we are perceived to be weak.

And of course there's NORTH KOREA,
pushing ahead with the development of long-range missiles. Just ONE atomic bomb detonated some 22
miles above the USA's "lower forty-eight" would be enough to create an ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE THAT WOULD BLITZ OUR
ENTIRE ELECTRICAL and ELECTRONIC GRID -- with the sole exception
of what had been especially hardened. And so we cut back on
anti-missile defense.

Bill Gertz, a veteran reporter on military matters, recently wrote a
detailed report for Newsmax-on-line on just how fast we are becoming a DECLINING "HAS BEEN" in the
international nuclear race. May I share his report with you here.

*
*
*
* *

Obama to Announce Major US
NUCLEAR FORCE CUTS Soon By Our Government Newsmax, Wednesday, May
15, 2013
Bill Gertz

President Barack Obama is set to announce a NEW round of strategic nuclear
warhead REDUCTIONS in the NEAR future as part of a DISARMAMENT agenda that could reduce
U.S. strategic warheads to as few as 1,000 weapons -- FULLY ONE THIRD OF THE NATION'S ARSENAL.

The next round of U.S.-Russian arms talks would follow Obama's expected
announcement that the United States' arsenal of strategic warheads can
be REDUCED UNILATERALLY to
around 1,000 warheads. That position is expected as a part of the
Pentagon's long-delayed Nuclear Posture Review implementation study
that Obama was expected to sign earlier this year.

Recent press reports have indicated that President Obama may make the CUTS -- FULLY ONE THIRD OF THE
NATION'S ARSENAL -- BY EXECUTIVE ACTION AND WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL
AUTHORIZATION.

Specialists on nuclear deterrence say FURTHER
CUTS beyond the 1,550 deployed warheads mandated by the 2010 NEW
START arms treaty COULD UNDERMINE the
United States' ability to deter nuclear powers like Russia and China,
who have significant modernization programs for their nuclear arsenals,
analysts say. Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney said the
administration is seeking to UNILATERALLY DISARM U.S. NUCLEAR FORCES,
SOMETHING THAT IS "THE MOST DANGEROUS THING I HAVE EVER SEEN AN
AMERICAN PRESIDENT ATTEMPT TO DO."

"This is NOT the time to
embark on such a dangerous path, with China, Russia, Iran, and North
Korea INCREASING their nuclear
forces," he said.

A U.S. official familiar with strategic nuclear policy said the delay
in signing the implementation study may be the result of concerns among military commanders
in charge of nuclear deterrence that
China's nuclear arsenal is expanding more rapidly than anticipated,
and that Russia and other nuclear states, including Pakistan and North
Korea, are MODERNIZING their
forces.

"I hear increasing concerns about CHINA,"
the official said. "We really don't
know what they're doing and what decisions are being made" about
China's nuclear-force modernization.

In addition to cuts to the nation's nuclear arsenal, the Obama administration appears to be
getting ready TO LIMIT U.S. MISSILE DEFENSES in a new agreement with
RUSSIA.

Obama wrote A STILL-SECRET
LETTER to Russian President Vladimir Putin that was delivered in
Moscow by White House National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon during a
visit there in mid-April.

Putin aide Yuri Ushakov told reporters in Moscow the letter "addresses problems of military
policy, Including the missile defense and nuclear arsenals issues."

A reply from the Russian president is expected soon, and a deal on both missile defenses and
new talks on strategic nuclear reductions could come during Obama's visit to
Russia in September.
Despite the Obama
administration's pledge to NOT COMPLETE the FINAL phase of its
MISSILE-DEFENSE program in Eastern Europe, Moscow remains vehemently
opposed to the U.S.-backed, NATO plan to deploy a series of sea-and
land-based missile defenses in Europe over the next five years.

Washington says the deployment is meant to counter Iran's long-range
missiles, but Moscow insists they are covertly aimed at countering its
offensive strategic missiles.

"The administration is hoping to
get some sort of missile-defense deal BY JUNE [that's like NOW], so that by September or
October Putin and Obama can announce
A NEW ROUND OF NUCLEAR-REDUCTION talks," the official said.

Rogers: Unilateral
Reductions of 'Immense Importance'

The impending
nuclear CUTS and missile-defense CONCESSIONS are raising concerns among
senior Republicans on Capitol Hill who fear the president is now
following through on his OPEN-MICROPHONE comment in March 2012 to
then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev.

Obama was OVERHEARD PROMISING
THE RUSSIANS "MORE FLEXIBILITY" ON MISSILE DEFENSES AFTER the November
election.

Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Armed Services subcommittee on
strategic forces, said recently the
administration's review of the nuclear war plan is nearly complete and
"is likely to recommend SIGNIFICANT FURTHER U.S. NUCLEAR-FORCE
REDUCTIONS."

"As the stockpile SHRINKS in
size, we have reached the point where further reductions take on
immense importance to the nation's security and international
stability," said Rogers, an Alabama Republican.

Further angering Republicans are concerns
that the administration, in order to avoid congressional
opposition and a difficult Senate ratification process, is planning to make the next round of cuts
THROUGH AN EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT rather than a treaty that requires
Senate approval.

Rogers vowed to oppose that
process. "Let me be clear: I intend to ensure that NO further reductions to U.S. nuclear
forces, including NEW START
treaty reductions, will occur WITHOUT
a formal treaty or explicit, affirmative authorization BY CONGRESS,"
he said in an April 24 speech to a breakfast group on Capitol Hill.

In April, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told Newsmax
TV that "there will be a tremendous backlash" if Obama moves to UNILATERALLY DEACTIVATE a
significant portion of the nuclear arsenal WITHOUT congressional approval.

"What kind of signals are we sending? Our
nuclear deterrent arsenal NEEDS TO BE MODERNIZED," said Graham,
a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

As a further indication of the coming nuclear cuts, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel ordered the
Air Force to conduct an environmental impact statement of SHUTTING DOWN
AN ENTIRE WING of land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles -- one
of the clearest signs of coming additional force cuts. The NEW START
TREATY contains NO provision for shuttering an ICBM facility.

While the UNITED STATES under
Obama's anti-nuclear weapons agenda is seeking to build DOWN its
forces, OTHER nations, notably Russia and China, are aggressively
MODERNIZING THEIR weapons.

"The problem is not just Russia.
EVERY OTHER nuclear power is building up their arsenals," the
U.S. official said.

The RUSSIAN strategic BUILDUP IS
STARK, officials say. It includes the following NEW systems:

• A new mobile ICBM called the Yars-M
to be deployed LATER THIS YEAR that will use a more powerful fuel,
allowing the missile to better defeat missile defenses. The missile
will have a range of up to 6,835 miles and have 10 warheads.

• A new rail-mobile ICBM is being
deployed by 2020. The Soviet Union was the first to deploy a
rail-mobile SS24 in the 1980s

• New submarines are being
deployed with new submarine-launched
Bulava missiles.

• A new strategic bomber to be
deployed by 2020.

• A new Kh-102 air-launched cruise
missile will be deployed by 2013 and a new Kaliber submarine-launched
cruise missile is being developed.

CHINA'S strategic nuclear
buildup also has been under way for a decade and includes three new
road-mobile ICBMS: the DF-31, DF-31A, and DF-41, and a new
submarine-launched ballistic missile, the JL-2.

The Pentagon revealed in
its latest annual report to Congress on the Chinese military that China is building TWO NEW CLASSES of
MISSILE SUBMARINES - one for nuclear ballistic missiles and one for
conventional cruise missiles. It was the first time the Pentagon
revealed the new missile submarines, which were disclosed as China has
begun deploying Jin-class nuclear-missile submarines and new
Shang-class nuclear-powered attack submarines.

U.S. intelligence agencies estimate
China has a relatively small nuclear arsenal of around 240 warheads. The intelligence ESTIMATE [THEY'VE BEEN
WILDLY WRONG BEFORE] was BASED in LARGE measure on China's DECLARED
policy of "no-first-use" - that it would not be the first to
use nuclear arms in a conflict.

However, the recent Chinese defense
white paper, the authoritative statement of Chinese military and
defense policy, for the first time
made NO MENTION of the no-first-use nuclear policy, raising new
concerns that China is on the path for a large-scale strategic nuclear-warhead buildup.

Former State Department
intelligence analyst John Tkacik said the rapid deployment of Chinese
MISSILE SUBMARINES and the shift from single-warhead to
MULTIPLE-WARHEAD missiles is CHANGING THE STRATEGIC BALANCE.

"Doing the math, we're looking at 60 JL-2s on five submarines, each
with at least three MIRVs (multiple, independently targetable RE-ENTRY
VEHICLES), so that's 180 NEW CHINESE NUCLEAR WARHEADS that we have to
plan for," Tkacik said. "IT GIVES ME
THE HEEBIE-JEEBIES."

Additionally, China recently
deployed the first of its unique intermediate range ANTI-SHIP ballistic
missiles designed to defeat U.S. aircraft carriers that are the
key platform that would be used in any defense of Taiwan, the island
state that China has said it is prepared to use force to retake. The missiles, known as the DF-21D, are
considered a major threat to U.S. naval forces operating in the western
Pacific.

Asked during a recent congressional hearing if Chinese naval forces are
a worry, Admiral Jonathan Greenert said: "I would just say that I'm
vigilant. I would hate to say
that I'm worried, YET, because
I'm NOT NECESSARILY worried. VERY VIGILANT, and WE NEED TO PAY ATTENTION and
understand the intent. And challenge them on that intent."

NORTH KOREA, which has
conducted three underground nuclear tests, also is said to be developing small warheads for
missiles. Asahi Shimbun reported in January, quoting
intelligence sources, that North Korea was ready to test a
"fusion-boosted fission bomb" in its next test. The sophisticated bomb
could be placed on a long-range Taepodong-2 missile, or North Korea's
new road-mobile ICBM, the KN-08.

PAKISTAN also is developing more
modern nuclear warheads and missiles to deliver them, U.S. officials
said. Pakistan is said to be getting assistance from China, which
provided the designs for Pakistan's first warheads, which in turn were
based on STOLEN U.S. nuclear-warhead designs.

INDIA, Pakistan's rival,
also recently tested a new intercontinental-ballistic missile and is working on an advanced ICBM.

U.S. Strategic Command
Calls for Modernization

With OTHER nations making
efforts to EXPAND AND MODERNIZE
their nuclear forces, U.S. military officials have voiced concerns
about the need to UPGRADE America's
EXISTING stockpile of nuclear weapons.

The commander of U.S. nuclear forces said he is concerned about CUTS IN BOTH THE NUMBER OF WARHEADS
as well as SHORTAGES IN FUNDING
needed to MODERNIZE AGING nuclear weapons and infrastructure.

Nuclear forces that NEED UPGRADES
include delivery systems, weapons
life-extension programs, stockpile monitoring, naval-reactor design
work, and upgrades for nuclear command and control, Gen. Robert Kehler,
head of the Omaha-based U.S. Strategic Command, said during a talk last
June at the Council on Foreign Relations.

If further funding cuts are made, "we will have to go back and do what
we did with this round of reductions: completely review what those
impacts could be and make the appropriate recommendations," the
four-star general said.

"Of all the elements of the nuclear enterprise, I'm most concerned with
the potential for declining or inadequate investment in the
nuclear-weapons enterprise itself; some declining investment that would result in
our INABILITY TO SUSTAIN THE DETERRENT FORCE," he said.

Rogers said he is concerned
about "the SORRY STATE of the nuclear modernization commitments made
during the LAST round" of talks with Russia.

Most Senate Republicans OPPOSED
the NEW START Treaty, noting its significant gaps. While
bringing Russia and the United States to parity in STRATEGIC nuclear weapons of 1,550
each, it allowed RUSSIA to maintain
its sizeable ADVANTAGE in TACTICAL nuclear warheads, with an estimated
stockpile of 3,800 such weapons. The United States, in comparison, has
less than 500. I

n the end, a handful of Senate Republicans supported ratification of NEW START after Obama PROMISED to invest $85 billion over
10 years after 2010 TO FIX THE AGING U.S. NUCLEAR ARSENAL and
infrastructure, which is LARGELY based on OUTDATED technology
that spans the Cold War period from the 1960s to the 1980s.

While the Pentagon has said it will TRY
to protect nuclear-force modernization from the devastating effect of
across-the-board cuts as part of
congressional sequestration, FUNDING for nuclear MODERNIZATION IS BEING
CUT.

Rogers said in a recent speech that funding levels agreed to in 2010
were the "MINIMUM required to
accomplish this modernization." However,
the administration is UNDERFUNDING nuclear forces by between $1 billion
and $1.6 billion, he said.

"Setting aside the gross budget numbers and looking at capability, it
is easy to see that NUCLEAR
MODERNIZATION IS IN GRAVE DANGER," Rogers said.

Among the weapons systems in jeopardy is the replacement for the Ohio-class
ballistic-missile submarine, which is being DELAYED. Other
programs that are being DELAYED
are urgently needed life-extension
programs for W-78 and W-88 nuclear warheads, the long-range
standoff cruise missile, and numerous other programs. And one of the most URGENTLY NEEDED facilities
-- a plutonium laboratory in New Mexico -- WAS CANCELED.

U.S. programs being DELAYED
included the submarine-launched
Trident D-5, which is now two years late and will not be deployed UNTIL
2029 AT THE EARLIEST.

In addition, Congress and the
Obama administration have BLOCKED any development of NEWER AND SAFER
nuclear weapons, allowing ONLY the refurbishing of OLDER warheads....
[Emphasis added].